Skip to main content

Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf

Citation
Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 850661.pdf
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Source verification
official_capture_completeness_unverified

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,752 chars
his fellow SPD officers. These allegations satisfy the sufficiency requirement in

SMC 4.20.860(B)(3).

Sgt. Hockett’s resubmitted whistleblower complaint was also timely

because it was filed within 180 days of when he reasonably should have known

that an occurrence of retaliation occurred. See SMC 4.20.860(A). The

whistleblower complaint stated that Sgt. Hockett “has suffered discrete, separable,

and ongoing adverse changes in his employment occurring in the past 180 days.”

(Emphasis added.) Likewise, the amended complaint from the King County

Superior Court action alleged that Sgt. Hockett “continues to be ostracized by SPD

officers,” that he “continues to be mocked as a whistleblower and has been

deemed not promotable,” and that “[i]nstances of retaliation occur daily, and are

ongoing.” (Emphasis added.) Because the alleged hostile actions were “ongoing,”

“continu[ing],” and “occur[ring] daily” on the date Sgt. Hockett filed his complaint, it

was necessarily filed within 180 days of an occurrence of retaliation and, therefore,

timely under SMC 4.20.860(A).

11
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 85066-1-I

Critical here, the Director agreed that Sgt. Hockett’s resubmitted

whistleblower complaint was both sufficient and timely. The Director’s July 2021

e-mail states that Sgt. Hockett’s resubmitted complaint is “sufficient under SMC

4.20.860, meaning that it ‘asserts facts that, if true, would show: (a) [Sgt. Hockett]

is a cooperating employee; (b) [Sgt. Hockett] was subjected to an adverse change

or changes that occurred within the prescribed time period; and (c) [Sgt. Hockett’s]

protected conduct reasonably appears to have been a contributing factor.’” The